PDA

View Full Version : rackham - simply better



Nemesis7884
23-10-2007, 09:43
why are rackham miniatures simply much more beautiful and detailed then gw? is it because of the bigger scale which allows more details (think 10 % bigger) or is it because gw want only its charactermodels on such a high lvl? nevertheless and altough they differ quite in style, i think rackham produces (also pose wise) the much better miniatures...

forthegloryofkazadekrund
23-10-2007, 09:46
plus they are in proportion compared to some of the newer gw models, look how short the legs are on the wfb empire warrior priests are and sthe commisars for 40k, not mentioning the ***** new daemonettes

Nemesis7884
23-10-2007, 10:02
so i am just wondering since gw/citadel is (as far as i know) the biggest producer worldwide, so they should also have the best sculpters...

dodicula
23-10-2007, 10:10
I wonder if a big part of the difference has to do with Rackham paying their sculptors better?

Nemesis7884
23-10-2007, 10:16
hmmm not sure about that, first of all, your not worse because you earn less then another... it might be that the best sculpters go to rackham because they earn more there, but i doupt gw is not paying salaries that are at market... moreover, i think sculting is more a intrinsic motivated job and thereofre not that heavily salary dependent...

maybe rackham allows their sculpters taking much more time for one miniatures then gw... moreover they have less variety of miniatures (although it seems rackham releases new models on a monthly base)

Bregalad
23-10-2007, 10:56
AFAIK, ALL Rackham miniatures are done by just ONE sculptor, who is the backbone of the company and defines the style (founder of the company?). While I don't like all ranges (esp. old dwarves and goblins), most are very cool (e.g. mid-nor, samurai goblins, wolfen, most elves). Didn't hinder them to get into financial trouble.

Nemesis7884
23-10-2007, 11:04
well table top gaming is an expensive hobby and still not that widely recognised

i think its really remarkable that all sculpting is done by oen sculpter, he has to be very fast and still producing exceptional miniatures...

WargamesEmpire
23-10-2007, 11:18
Well, considering that Rackham are stopping their production of metal miniatures, GW will once again take back the crown.

Although I'll agree that a number of Rackham miniatures are better than anything GW has produced, they do release a lot of stinkers too, namely their Dwarven ranges and the Orcs. The scale on a lot of those miniatures are really messed up. (Tiny legs and massive torsos, etc.)

To be honest, I'm a much bigger fan of GW's work than the comical, cartoony style of Rackham. Each to his own though.

Nemesis7884
23-10-2007, 11:28
i think rackham is much less cartoonic then gw?!? but as you said...

well just one idea that hit my mind, this all might be some sort of marketing trick, i mean if your producing now a perfect range of miniature, how do you get the same people to buy the same minitaures again in some years when you redo them...

so i think they are improving intentionally the miniatures on every new cycle, so that all the players will buy the same troops over and over again...

Von Bismarck
23-10-2007, 11:46
rackham has SOME nice mins and some totally awful ones, however i find the GW mins (especially) fantasy are far more attractive for the most part and have more character.

rackham are also moving into pre painted mins which removes them totally from GWs field in terms of audience.

Makaber
23-10-2007, 11:46
I think Rackham has two things going for them. First, they're a bit different from GW miniatrues, they offer something new, stylistically. After being fed the same dish for year after year, naturally a little variation in the diet will taste very good indeed.

Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, Rackham uses heat-treated putty instead of the composite two-part epoxy stuff. Maybe that has something to do with the detail?

But push comes to shove, I don't really think Rackham overall has better miniatures than GW. Some are absolutely gorgeous, but that can be said for GW as well. Both certainly has their stinkers. My main gripe with Rackham is how they fail to provide a consistent setting. Thematically the armies are all over the place, it's like mixing Disney with Conan and expecting it to work.

Ah, writing this, it occured to me that the reason why people love Rackham models so much probably has a lot to do with how they're a niche product and can take more risks. GW, being a profit driven alpha dog, need to provide a product for the masses, while Rackham are free to indulge in the esoteric and exotic in a far greater degree.

Jedi152
23-10-2007, 12:09
Some of their stuff is well sculpted, but i'm not a really fan. It just doesn't appeal to me. It's too 'arty' ... too cartoony (i think that's it - i can't put my finger on it).

IMO, you'll have to go a long way to beat GW quality, barring a few dire models.

Varath- Lord Impaler
23-10-2007, 12:55
GW models have to Rank up. They have to be practical. They need to be able to stand the rigours of wargaming.

GW sculpters do well to make really nice models which dont leave their base that much.

theultimateqpa
23-10-2007, 14:09
What many people are forgetting is that even though Rackham minis may be technicly(sp?) better sculpted than GW(better details, poses, sometimes a bit more thought and character is put in to a single mini) but GW minis are still sculpted upon a much better visualy designed world. Rackham minis are very original and have this very characterfull french comic style but the Warhammer fantasy is still much better looking. It may be this typical fantasy but its still something that tigers love the most(remember that change and new flawours are always nice but original does not always mean better). Of course there are some things in warhammer that doesnt neccesarly look great, there are also some things that are out dated and didint get to be redesigned but then again wich fantasy world is perfect. And Warhammer is propably the best looking and best visualy designed fantasy world out there. Iam not saying that its as good as for example the incredible work that Weta Workshop did for LOTR movie after all warhammer is still your typical gaming fantasy where things are design expressivly and overally (rather than in detail, realisticly and professialy like in the case of LOTR, but then again LOTR was simply designed by more profesional top-world class designers, and its a movie so its a diffrent case.) wich results somtimes with this typical fantasy cheesines and over the top look in some aspects of WH. But still Warhammer visual design is at the top of the game. Certainly better then the looks of any other mini game in the buisness.
And is certainly one of the biggest milestones for the looks of today fantasy.
Warhammer art influences and legacy are everywhere, not to mention total rips-offs(*cough* Blizzard*cough*)
There is also one very, very important thing that some people dont notice but that have been said many times on many modeling forums even by professional French painters.
The real reason why rackham minis looks so great is the painting.
The way confrontation minis are painted for their catalouges is simply outstanding and its often that a single confrontation rank and files trooper mini is so well painted that it puts most golden daemon winners to shame.
Not to mention the breath taking terrain that thoes minis are displayed upon.
It all creates the effect that when you see the pictures form their catalogues you simply want to buy that thinking that form a modellers and painters point of view these are better thatn GW(and thats bulsh**)
While the GW Eavy Metal team paints their minis to sometimes redicolusly simple recipies wich gives a ,,toyish,, look to their mini range especialy in the case of the plastic troopers wich creates the illusion that warhammer hobby is ,,simple,, and not for ambitious moddelers(wich is a complete bullsh%& and just an illusion).
And still sometimes you can see a good warhammer picture from time to time wich simply makes you wanna paint something(and that happens with that ****** eavy metal pianting methods and GW model team ridicoulusly simplistic terrain, imagine then how good it would look if the GW modeling and painting team would put as much effort as Rackham does. Hell even the new pictures on the boxes of the reboxed elite chices for the High Elves make the minis look better than they actually are:) )
So in the end even if you look through the uber-paint job and see that rackham models are better sulpted and that GW sometimes get to do some incredibly ****** plastic, the looks of warhammer still makes up for this.
Not to mention that citadel range is full of Archaons, csm deamon princes and other classics

Sephtar II
23-10-2007, 14:41
I agree that some of the rackham stuff is very nice to look at but at the same time there are some very cartoony ones (those dwarves!). also it is hideously expensive I mean your paying 20ish for one cavalry model!

The rackham painting style does make them look extremely good but now they are moving entirely over to pre painted and in my opinion this is not good. looking at AT-43 the quality you get is not that good at all, it drives up the price even more and takes away (in my opinion) one of the biggest draws of the hobby, the actual modeling and painting. For that reason I prefer good old GW.

Pokpoko
23-10-2007, 15:24
Well, considering that Rackham are stopping their production of metal miniatures, GW will once again take back the crown.

with all respect,i tried not to laught here...
Infinity, Helldorado,Alkemy..just a few games with models far superior in details and things like proportions to GW's.
GW has very distinctive style,but technically it changed little in the last few years imo, and even those changes tened towards more huuge bling on models. majority of models being plastic may also have something to do with it-most of the competition,in fact i think everyone except rackham now, does the models in metal,which,despite what GW wants to belive,still holds fine details better.

TheOverlord
23-10-2007, 16:46
Rackham designs very nice proportionate bodies. That's about all their selling point is. If you actually sit down and bother to have a comparison of both companies side by side, you'll start noticing some things.

1) GW aims for a heroic proportions, this we all know, and use a different set of rules than rackham, which is why Rackham seems better.

2) Rackham designs are... how shall we say? Very one-dimensional. If you talk about details, all I really see are swirly lines, fur, and cloth. Sure they're well sculpted, but GW offers you far more intricate designs, like symbols, glyphs, artefacts, hourglasses, and all sort of little assortments you tend to miss over as they are small (well, smaller than the rest of the model at any rate :P) and many players tend to paint over with 1 color without accentuating them to look nicer. Rackham has more flat areas to paint over, with not much in the minute detail category. (Warmachine however has most excellent details, but lack the mastery to sculpt their miniatures so they're BLOODY WEAPONS DON'T BREAK AT THE SLIGHTEST WIND![Well, the human figurines, at any rate])

3) GW sculpts for both metal and plastic, and their plastic range are by far more interesting than anything Rackham produces (even though I love the Wulfen of Rackham, they're so unconvertable it's laughable. Damn French.)

4) GW takes into account how well the sculpt takes punishment, as it is primarily a playing piece rather than a showcase piece, and must take care their poses aren't so dynamic that it'll snap off the minute someone knocks it over (The old wulfen, especially. So many parts, with so little space to glue them in, it's just... terrible. I feel like blowing up France just trying to assemble my damn Wulfen it's not funny)

5) GW isn't about fine details. Nobody seems to get this. They DON'T WANT LITTLE PANSY BITS THAT YOU MISTAKE AS MOLD LINES AND SHAVE OFF! They are 'ard, they're big and bad, they're tuff and all that. I honestly do like those miniatures with good fine details, but sometimes you just want something you can paint normally without squinting every so often. GW does sometimes make this mistake of course, but it's not quite so prevailent as some of the other companies. ( I call it a mistake cause I seriously hate those ridiculously small details you'd think it was a flash under bad light)

I far prefer GW because they have a very strong feel for the character of the model, instead of 'OO look at me, I'm so pretty!', but that's just me.

Although many models tend to look far far better than they are originally with a good paint job (even if some are unsavable)

Urgat
23-10-2007, 16:58
I can't believe you people are arguing over what's better, when it all boils down to tastes. Rackham is better, GW is better? What the hell? Which one is cooler, a lion or a tiger? Which one would win, the rhinoceros or an elephant?
One word: Sad (yup, with a capital S).
The only sound arguments were about the quality of the models themselves. Proportions? Material used? Too much details/too much streamlining of the design?
Heck.

MindSlave
23-10-2007, 17:18
Hell, I have a 2000 point Chaos army and all my characters are rackham! Soooo nice for heroes and lords...

Mad Doc Grotsnik
23-10-2007, 19:09
Rackhams stuff isn't terribly practical though, notably the Humans and Elves. Very thin ankles and wrists which won't stand up to the rigours of gameplay.

Crube
23-10-2007, 19:18
I have to say that I'm personally not a fan of most of Rackhams stuff (that I've seen anyways...)

Just doesnt seem to hit the nail on the head for me. They do have some great mini's, and I'm not saying I love every GW sculpt, but I like more GW scupts than I do Rackham...

Archaon
23-10-2007, 19:46
Rackhams stuff isn't terribly practical though, notably the Humans and Elves. Very thin ankles and wrists which won't stand up to the rigours of gameplay.

Exactly.. many models are in danger of breaking or seriously twisting while used ingame.

I used some Rackham miniatures for my Chaos army and highly regretted it.. they looked gorgeous and unique but were very impractical for gaming.

Rackham miniatures are pretty good as display bases and when i'm done painting my army (which may never happen :p) i might buy some off ebay and paint them up for display purposes.

swordwind
23-10-2007, 19:54
What the hell are you people doing to your miniatures if they need to be built to stop you breaking them in game?!

Von Bismarck
23-10-2007, 20:01
gamming for the most part doesnt stress minis that much however there are always times when u will drop/knock the movement tray when ur moving or catch a spear and knock a horse mounted unit over ( WILD RIDERS GOD DAMN IT) or some1 will knock the table.

minis used for gaming will get dmged, and i commend GW for keeping most of their minis very durable but also well sculpted, plastic is great for durability, as long as elite units and chars are kept metal i dont mind ^^

lanrak
23-10-2007, 20:03
Having read through this thread.

If I was going to compare Rackams product to GWs,I would have compared the objective functionality of the rule sets, NOT the subjective asthetics of the minatures .

Because all though some may like Rackham minatures, more than GW minatures .The minis are just delux game counters, realy .

The quality of the rule sets, and game play is the most important thing to gamers.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Pokpoko
23-10-2007, 20:12
you can use any ruleset you want with any minis you want as long as they are remotely similiar, plus it's the minis that make money for company,not rules-if minis are teh suxor no amount of good rules will save them 9 times out of 10.

STGM
23-10-2007, 20:17
so i am just wondering since gw/citadel is (as far as i know) the biggest producer worldwide, so they should also have the best sculpters...

This gave me a chuckle. By this reasoning, McDonalds' food should be better than the local five-star restaurant's... :D

swordwind
23-10-2007, 20:36
Look at GW's latest offerings. Pretty nice eh?

Now look at the Song of Ice and Fire range by Tom Meier....

Pokpoko
23-10-2007, 20:41
ooh,now THAT was a low blow swordwind:D

Mad Doc Grotsnik
23-10-2007, 20:54
What the hell are you people doing to your miniatures if they need to be built to stop you breaking them in game?!

Whose talking about in game? I've known Rackhams stuff to go at the ankles during painting...

Sure, the models are nice, but like GW, they have their flaws.

antin3
23-10-2007, 21:06
Those fire and ice mini's are nice, sculpted in very intricate detail and are great for display pieces. Nice to LOOK at.
Do they rank up?, Do you have to paint 50 to 70 of them to make an army? I also read that they are going to be 10.00 each. I will have them I will paint them and display them but not GAME with them.

Pokpoko
23-10-2007, 21:10
do they look like r'n'f to you? more like heroes,neh?
plus there are games out there that actually don't use gazzilion minis,but 5 to 20...

not to mention that if you are able to sculpt like that sculpting normal grunts that do rank up is pretty easy imo,just bend the armature right way before sculpting...

Ethlorien
23-10-2007, 21:13
I use Rackham figures for some of my heroes and lords (namely Chaos and Beasts), but that's about it. While I do think they are sculpted better, I find GW much more practical. I collect them (while I still can) and mostly use them for display only. When it comes to rank and file troops, GW all the way. My HE army is 100% GW and I find it looks real sharp that way.

antin3
23-10-2007, 21:23
A friend just bought the new Empire wizard and I have to admit that it looks awesome. Everything is in proportion and the detail is amazing. I don't get these people that say you can't get detail in plastic, just look at the swords of some of the GW metal models for example, and compare them to the new Empire plastic swordsmen. I can almost shave with it. I don't hate other companies models, I just prefer GW for WFB. I am not that interested in "skirmish" style games. I like the big battles, one other thing I think overall Rackhams miniature line is way more cartoony than GW's. That's just my opinion though.

Warp Zero
23-10-2007, 21:26
The rackham painting style does make them look extremely good but now they are moving entirely over to pre painted and in my opinion this is not good. looking at AT-43 the quality you get is not that good at all, it drives up the price even more and takes away (in my opinion) one of the biggest draws of the hobby, the actual modeling and painting. For that reason I prefer good old GW.

I actually don't have a problem with the pre-painted quality of AT-43. Sure, I can paint better....but for pre-painted its pretty good. Way better than Heroclix or D&D minis any day. And....way better than a majority of the stuff I see being brought to the table at the local GW store.

My problem with AT-43 is the design. The human factions look pretty awesome granted....although a little bit of a rip from the Maschinen Krieger stuff from Japan (but the French have always loved the Japanese and vice versa....they're always influencing one another). But the alien bad guys are very uninspired. Spiny necro-themed again? One, they seem to be just space Alchemist of Dirz....Two, too close to Privateer Press' Cryx.....Three, it feels like a "fantasy" element in a sci-fi setting. 40k does plenty of that already with Chaos and star gods and what not.....no need for Rackham to do it too.

For me, those that copy the popular so they can sell well too....usually don't get my money because why would I buy two things that taste the same? I really wanted AT-43's look and feel to be very different than 40k. When it came out....upon first appearance, not so much. And that's why I didn't buy AT-43.


2) Rackham designs are... how shall we say? Very one-dimensional. If you talk about details, all I really see are swirly lines, fur, and cloth. Sure they're well sculpted, but GW offers you far more intricate designs, like symbols, glyphs, artefacts, hourglasses, and all sort of little assortments you tend to miss over as they are small (well, smaller than the rest of the model at any rate :P) and many players tend to paint over with 1 color without accentuating them to look nicer. Rackham has more flat areas to paint over, with not much in the minute detail category.

Yes, the Griffons have jagged ridged decorations on their armor....no wait, so do Cynwall Elves....or wait so do....on and on. Rackham minis look ******* awesome but there are times when their art team doesn't distinguish enough of the cultural between factions. Granted GW does this a lot too. What? Eldar use chainswords too? Oh okay. But the thing is GW does much less. Tyranids look WAY different than Orks who look WAY different than Space Marines who look WAY different than Tau who look WAY different than Necrons who.....

Then there's Warmachine. If you squint your eyes at a table full of unpainted Warjacks from the different factions, you couldn't tell 'em apart. Their basic silhouettes are pretty much the same. That why if I picked up their minis, I'd try Hordes instead. Those are some great designs.

Best fantasy art team is still WETA's group on Lord of the Rings. Although I'm fast becoming a fan of the art team on the upcoming video game Kingdom Under Fire: Circle of Doom



I can't believe you people are arguing over what's better, when it all boils down to tastes. Rackham is better, GW is better? What the hell? Which one is cooler, a lion or a tiger? Which one would win, the rhinoceros or an elephant?
One word: Sad (yup, with a capital S).
The only sound arguments were about the quality of the models themselves. Proportions? Material used? Too much details/too much streamlining of the design?
Heck.

You're right. It is a matter of tastes. I like the quality of both GW and Rackham. It just depends one what I'm in the mood for that month. There's room in the hobby for both right? But there's nothing wrong with talking about it. That's what these forums are for. I enjoy a good spirited debate over what we like and what we don't like. If no one started this subject, I wouldn't have had something fun to read.

Both Rackham and GW have their nice minis and their ugly ones. I can't say much about rules because I've yet to play a game of Confrontation. But if I did, I would totally redo the counters.

"Okay, one barbed spike is stunned? Two barbed spikes with a thingy is...uh...what was that again?"

swordwind
23-10-2007, 21:27
All the rest of his stuff ranks up and the Darksword minis stuff are reasonably priced for thier level of detail and quality of the cast, I'm sure ASOIAF will be the same.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
23-10-2007, 21:28
I buy what I like. I don't care what you people think and neither does GW or Rackham or Privateer Press or Ral Partha or Old Glory.

efarrer
23-10-2007, 22:03
Yes, the Griffons have jagged ridged decorations on their armor....no wait, so do Cynwall Elves....or wait so do....on and on. Rackham minis look ******* awesome but there are times when their art team doesn't distinguish enough of the cultural between factions. Granted GW does this a lot too. What? Eldar use chainswords too? Oh okay. But the thing is GW does much less. Tyranids look WAY different than Orks who look WAY different than Space Marines who look WAY different than Tau who look WAY different than Necrons who.....

"Okay, one barbed spike is stunned? Two barbed spikes with a thingy is...uh...what was that again?"


ON the other hand in the real world during any single period in a given part of the world decorative elements were largely the same.

Grizzled
24-10-2007, 07:17
What the hell are you people doing to your miniatures if they need to be built to stop you breaking them in game?!

A few examples that have happened to me personally:

- Over-enthusiastic guy accidentally rolls his 40 close combat attack dice right into some unit on the table.

- Other over-enthusiastic guy likes to make important die rolls with a strong flip of the wrist, same result. (Sure I could tell them to knock it off, but these are people I like to play with, you have to give them a little leeway).

- Little kid comes in game shop, picks up your nicely painted conversion while you are not looking, drops it.

- Poorly put-together Defiler's legs collaps, it falls into the squad you have in CC with it.

- I forget to latch my carrying case, minis go all over the floor.

Of course all of these things could be easily avoided. But they do happen:p

As to Rackham vs. GW, the beautiful stuff in the Rackham 2006 catalog made me go out and buy some of their Alahan stuff. They do paint up nice. But since then GW has put out so many really nice things, and I actually play their games, so that their figures make a much better purchase.

Someone mentioned PP...how can a company make stuff that is so nice (e.g. Skorne Praetorians, all the Everblight warbeasts) and then such utter garbage (Woldwarden, Daughters of the Flame, etc.)?

spaint2k
24-10-2007, 07:41
Rackham's figures are made in a metal that is rather soft and prone to breaking. It also makes the paint come off way too easily too.

On the other hand, I wish I had several hundred Euros handy so I could buy the entire MidNor range of dwarfs before they disappear forever. They are beautiful and strongly thematic miniatures that I'd love to own.

Steve

Warp Zero
24-10-2007, 11:09
ON the other hand in the real world during any single period in a given part of the world decorative elements were largely the same.

That's a valid point. Let me even add to it. In the real world, even opposing countries can have similar designs. The former Soviet Union's Mig-25 and our own F-15 Eagle are very similar.

However, let's me counter point with two things:

1.) That's real life. Things like that happen. In a fictional fantasy setting that you can control, you don't have to be victim to that. You can maximize the art design as much as you want. That includes making every culture look different....because you can. You are the creator of the world.

2.) Now, if you want to add "realism" to your fictional world by putting real world elements in it. Elements like, this culture borrowed from that culture, then write it into your background fluff.

If you do research and find out that Cynwall Elves helped the Griffon human faction to learn armor smithing...then I will admit to being wrong to point my art snobbish finger at them. ;) However, if no such background history exists, then I just say that the art team couldn't come up with different decorations for armor that day. :)

Sure, two kingdoms close to each other may share certain designs. Blacksmiths and other crafters may travel from place to place. They may teach apprentices that travel to work for a nearby kingdom. If Bretonnians and Empire have similar armor, that would make sense. But if Lizardmen and Empire had similar armor....that would make NO sense.

By the way, just to clarify, I'm not bashing Rackham. I do indeed think most of their minis are beautiful. I was just responded to someone else's observation that even the much applauded Rackham has flaws. For me, sometimes its the lack of creative variation in some of their armor designs. That's all. Their stuff still kicks butt. But I also love a lot of Games Workshop minis too.....oh and...I love some Reaper minis....and......

Pokpoko
24-10-2007, 12:33
But if Lizardmen and Empire had similar armor....that would make NO sense.well, if we talk pre-contact then yes. if we talk post-contact then my guess is that after a few serious trouncings by better armed and equipped imperials the lizzies would quickly catch up(just take a look at indians and how quickly they got better at horse fighting then the spaniards who brought the damn things.of course it goes both ways, the first spanish conquistadors were known to change their metal armor for the cotton-leatehr style of the natives because it was simply more useful in that envrioment). but that's too realistic, so instead we have medieval knights who are sudicidal enough not to borrow full-plate from their eastern neibourghs;)

efarrer
24-10-2007, 15:27
That's a valid point. Let me even add to it. In the real world, even opposing countries can have similar designs. The former Soviet Union's Mig-25 and our own F-15 Eagle are very similar.

However, let's me counter point with two things:

1.) That's real life. Things like that happen. In a fictional fantasy setting that you can control, you don't have to be victim to that. You can maximize the art design as much as you want. That includes making every culture look different....because you can. You are the creator of the world.

2.) Now, if you want to add "realism" to your fictional world by putting real world elements in it. Elements like, this culture borrowed from that culture, then write it into your background fluff.

If you do research and find out that Cynwall Elves helped the Griffon human faction to learn armor smithing...then I will admit to being wrong to point my art snobbish finger at them. ;) However, if no such background history exists, then I just say that the art team couldn't come up with different decorations for armor that day. :)

Sure, two kingdoms close to each other may share certain designs. Blacksmiths and other crafters may travel from place to place. They may teach apprentices that travel to work for a nearby kingdom. If Bretonnians and Empire have similar armor, that would make sense. But if Lizardmen and Empire had similar armor....that would make NO sense.

By the way, just to clarify, I'm not bashing Rackham. I do indeed think most of their minis are beautiful. I was just responded to someone else's observation that even the much applauded Rackham has flaws. For me, sometimes its the lack of creative variation in some of their armor designs. That's all. Their stuff still kicks butt. But I also love a lot of Games Workshop minis too.....oh and...I love some Reaper minis....and......


Just to make my point clear here. Minor artistic designs tend to pop up in similar cultures. It didn't take long for the samuria to start wanting plate steel once they learned about it. I have to say that that is something I laothe about fantasy. It makes no sense why anyone ever would choose to underequip. Why are coldone knights not in the heavy plate? We know they have ilthimar. Why would they let humans outarmour them.

At least with the rackham swirl fetish it's part of the armour's decorative elements, while the armour itself is slightly different. I know all of the huamn factions have a Keltish background.

scratchbuilt
24-10-2007, 19:59
I don't think Rackham models look better.

scarletsquig
24-10-2007, 21:04
But the alien bad guys are very uninspired. Spiny necro-themed again? One, they seem to be just space Alchemist of Dirz....Two, too close to Privateer Press' Cryx.....Three, it feels like a "fantasy" element in a sci-fi setting. 40k does plenty of that already with Chaos and star gods and what not.....no need for Rackham to do it too.

For me, those that copy the popular so they can sell well too....usually don't get my money because why would I buy two things that taste the same? I really wanted AT-43's look and feel to be very different than 40k. When it came out....upon first appearance, not so much. And that's why I didn't buy AT-43.

Have a read of the background material for it.. it's hugely different from 40k, all the factions are various shades of grey and it draws from various sci-fi concepts while basing the entire technology system within the realms of reasonable science fact. (no magic space gods in this one). And those "boring generic spiky bad guys" are a actually lot more complicated than that. I'm no fanboi, I also like 40k's background a lot. :)

Can't comment much on the rules, but I like how the army lists are balanced with scenarios in mind, and a lot of the "uber lists" on paper end up being ruined in scenario play compared to the more balanced lists.

The main appeal for the game for me is the background and artwork, I'm waiting for the Karmans to come out before buying an army though.

If they get through the rough initial investment period, I can see AT-43 and Confrontation taking over from 40k/ fantasy in the US and European markets, while remaining relatively niche in the UK. The product is just plain better-suited to the current "instant satisfaction" climate that seems to be prevailing with clix/ card games.

As for the models.. I'm just glad to see a prepainted range of models that doesn't look crap, and more importantly isn't sold randomly.

grickherder
24-10-2007, 22:05
I like a lot of Rackham's sculpts and think they did so much to increase the painting and sculpting standards in the industry. They effectively introduced the French style of painting, non-metallic metals and a variety of other techniques as well as a higher standard for highlighting.

Their game support was terrible. I could never keep straight what version of the rules they were on, what was Confrontation and what was Ragnorak. It's true that I only kept a peripheral view of them, but when I went to a local game store, I was never sure if any book or starter was actually the core game for the models or not. Furthermore, they replaced them so quickly. 3.5 editions over what? 6 years? And now a 4th edition that switches everything over the prepainted plastics and increases the model count? No thanks.

Now I don't think GW's rules (outside of specialist games) are much better, but at least you know exactly what to get to start. The rules for 40k and WFB are pretty weak, but they are accessible.

Now when it comes to background story, I think Confrontation has some absolutely awesome stuff. I particularly like the background of the Mid-nor dwarves. They're just down right creepy. Local stores had them marked down by 75% so I grabbed the ones I wanted-- I'm only missing one box set, which is awesome and I can see why others snapped it all up earlier. I was also dumb and slept through the only eBay auction for it! I could have had it at like 80% off.

My main problem with prepaints has always been the terrible mould lines. Combine with a bad prepaint job, and the miniatures look awful. I've done some repainting, but again, the mould lines were next to impossible to remove. I haven't seen any of the AT-43 stuff up close though. Either way, I'm not interested in pre-painted miniatures.

EDIT: Here's a list of all their games over the years, so you can see what I'm talking about when I go into a gaming store and don't know what's what:

Confrontation, Confrontation 2, Confrontation 3, Hybrid, Nemisis, Rag'Norak, Confrontation: Rag'Norak, Cadwallon ... have I missed any? What edition of Confrontation are the cards that came with the miniatures? Do the miniatures work with Hybrid? What about Rag'Norak?

Locally, people bought the miniatures to paint them and use them for other things, not to play them with some game that may or may not be the right game for the miniatures.

Ethlorien
24-10-2007, 23:14
Hyrbid have their own cards/game, some of the miniatures comes with their own Hybrid version cards. Cadwallon is their role-playing game, I believe. Some Confrontation cards are outdated and revised in the rulebooks, they never re-print new editions of the cards. I'm not a fan of the game, but do enjoy the models.

grickherder
25-10-2007, 00:18
I agree-- the models are awesome, but the game... not too jazzed. Too many revisions, translation issues and revamps. And pre-painted plastics? Ugh.

I may pick up Cadwallon as RPG books often have good amount of background material in them.

EDIT -- I won't be picking up Cadwallon. I've read some reviews of it online and don't see it as a good source of background material.

Bael
25-10-2007, 02:38
hmmm not sure about that, first of all, your not worse because you earn less then another... it might be that the best sculptors go to rackham because they earn more there, but i doubt gw is not paying salaries that are at market... moreover, i think sculpting is more a intrinsic motivated job and therefore not that heavily salary dependent...

GW pay their sculptors a lot more than Rackham does.

freelancer
25-10-2007, 03:23
Yes Rackham might be better, but witch company has declared bankrupt and selling of a foundry and who isnt? IMHO All of Games Workshops stuff is better all of it.

freelancer

Warp Zero
25-10-2007, 04:39
Just to make my point clear here. Minor artistic designs tend to pop up in similar cultures.

There was not need to clarify. I understood you.[/QUOTE]




At least with the rackham swirl fetish it's part of the armour's decorative elements, while the armour itself is slightly different. I know all of the huamn factions have a Keltish background.

I hear you. I'm just saying that even though Confrontation has beautiful miniatures, there is one thing (for me) that I kind of wished they would improve on. That being, more variation in armor decoration. Both GW and Rackham have strengths and weaknesses. In my defense of the GW line, I was saying that one of their strengths is that they make a majority of their armies very disntinctive from one another.

Rackham
Elf Swirly armor
http://www.rackham-store.com/boutique/fiche_produit.cfm?type=447&ref=FRCYEL01&code_lg=lg_us&pag=1&num=38

Human Swirly armor
http://www.rackham-store.com/boutique_us/fiche_produit.cfm?type=444&ref=FRLIGM03&code_lg=lg_us&pag=1&num=8


Games Workshop

Elf
http://www.coolminiornot.com/index/whatm/GW/id/123665

Human
http://www.coolminiornot.com/155363

Now, I've picked the examples that best helped to sell my point. But in truth, there's plenty examples where Rackham has distinct looking factions. The Dwarves look nothing like the Alchemist of Dirz for instance.

The whole point was that art teams aren't handcuffed by realism. They can make each line of their product as distinct and enjoyable to collect as their abilities allow them. With Games Workshop, its true that most of their miniature line isn't as dynamic as Rackham's, but I like both...and I like GW for what they're good at. Which one of them happens to be making armies that visualy stand out from one another. Its my opinion that the biggest offender of making "things looking to similar" is Privateer Press' Warmachine line.

grickherder
25-10-2007, 08:43
I think what Warp Zero is saying is reasonable. We could likely bring up some very different looking miniatures as well, though.

I don't love all of Rackham's lines. A lot of them are good, but some of them are terrible, just like GW. I would also say that from a technical stand point, Rackham would only slightly edge out GW in terms of detail level and the like. At the same time, GW's much harder white metal is less prone to breakage and bending. Either way, I have only bought 1 blister from GW at full retail and no Confrontation stuff at full price. I have however, bought much, much more Confrontation stuff at a discount as I found the value for the sculpts hits a sweet spot much quicker than with GW's stuff. This is, however, a completely personal matter-- other people would be the reverse.

As for the "sameness" of Warmachine, I actually like it. It's only a real problem when people don't paint their models. However, I don't currently own any Privateer Press miniatures and have no plans to buy any in the immediate future. My only planned purchases at this point are to get the last elusive Mid-nor box I want at a good price (full retail is not going to happen) and to get caught up in painting.

dancingmonkey
25-10-2007, 14:18
My only planned purchases at this point are to get the last elusive Mid-nor box I want at a good price (full retail is not going to happen) and to get caught up in painting.[/QUOTE]

heh, someone else chasong up the last bits of the army too! I feel your pain.

I think all the points above are valid. Rackham make some damn nice models (Orcs/some Wulfen/ Dirz an Mid Nor all are top notch) and some slightly naff ones (The "good" dwarves are very hit and miss.) One of the main issues though is thae availability, both of models and of players. I got into Confrontation jsut in time to watch it swirl down the preoverbial crapper, and having bought up two thords of my Mid Nor army, I am left desperately trying to scape together enough stuff yo finish the force. The game esentially became too big, wit holder models being too hard to come by (Prowlers of Mid Nor (no 2 especially) anyone?)

THis makes it hard to love the company, despite loving the models. I admot, the painting of Rackham's stuff does make a big differene. I'm a fairly good painter, but my Dirz stuff looks quite plain. (I can't really handel free hand work at the moment so everything looks a bit plain)

The issues of metal stregth really is a major one with Rackham. They cannot take any abuse at all. Often models come out of the box snapped and Rackham will replace, but are quite arsey about it. (PP have the best policy, along with GW. Stick it in a box, no wuestions asked.)

I will never compalin about weaker PP stuff having built my Rackham stuff. It isn't GW strong, but its a lot better. (Thats why I picked Mid Nor, chunky models = less breakage)

The trouble with discussions like this is that it comes down to taste. I love zombies and pirates, no prizes for guessing my faction for WM! (and my tattoo choice :)) I have played GW for 13 years, and always will, but needed a break and looked elsewhere.

All companies prodce some great stuff, and some naff stuff. Play in an indie or club, and you can always mix the best bits from all ranges in an uber army of doom.

OBISPUDKENOBI
25-10-2007, 14:56
Isnt this just another "have a pop at GW" thread? that does not really belong in the other GW discussion section ?

tanglethorn
25-10-2007, 20:17
So far from what i have gathered from some of the posters in this thread are:

1) GW mini's are more detailed??

2) GW Models are more hardy to not breaking??

3) Paints stick to GW models better than Rakham??

4) Rackham models are too cartoony??

5) GW models have more heroic poses??

I've played all the games over the past 3 years from WHFB, Warmachine, Hordes, 40k and Confrontation.

Although I play GW games more over any other game it's mostly because I can easily find more players.

Saying that, I got a chuckle over the each one of the above claims. I completly disagree!

In fact at my gaming store Confrontation has moved to the front so it's the first game customers see when they come in. Window shoppers seem to have more of a reaction to the Rackham section.

Also, every WHFB and 40k player that comes in eyes the Rackham section and whats the first thing they say?

"Wow, those Rackham models are beautiful? What's the game like?"

What do they say by the time they get to the Privateer Press section?

"They look ok, but a lot of the models and characters look too blocky or too think"

Ironically, most of the customers love the Privateer Press games more over than any of the games of late. 40k is second, Confrontation is 3rd and WHFB is last.

40k has become comicly known as the kid's "let's play army men" type game for teenagers. (which kind of sucks for us 40k veternans).

WHFB is personally my Fav from GW, but it has the smallest player base in my area :(

However, I have to strongly disagree that Rackham models are worse than GW's. In fact one of the reasons its really starting to pick up in sales at my store is because of how attractive the models are and because GW players are either burnt out or are mad at GW pricing policies, rule changes, etc...

I have to really disagree with some of the post. I find the majority of Rackhams model range simply stunning. I cant even tell you how many players ask if they can use Rackham Orcs for WHFB Orcs and Goblins.

My impression is that Rackham is really for the maturer player base who are looking for a little more originality and who are also looking to test their painting skills...

theunwantedbeing
25-10-2007, 20:33
Rackham isnt "better".
It just follows less constraints and has all the pictures of its models painted to rediculously high standards to make its models look "better".

Either way, its not really right to use non GW models in a GW store.
Regardless of whether you think something looks better or not than what GW has to offer.

The_Patriot
25-10-2007, 20:50
Rackham isnt "better".
It just follows less constraints and has all the pictures of its models painted to rediculously high standards to make its models look "better".

Either way, its not really right to use non GW models in a GW store.
Regardless of whether you think something looks better or not than what GW has to offer.

I have some Confrontation figs in my 40k army because GW doesn't make something comparable. I also use those figs in the local GW store and the employees don't have a problem with it because they know my army's fluff. I run an all female Sisters army and the only options I had for Vet IG, Penitents, and Acolytes was to use Rackham figs. I used Mira for Vet IG, Ophidian Syhes for Penitents, and Valkyries of Alahan for Acolytes. They fit in quite well with my GW Sisters figs.

Pokpoko
25-10-2007, 20:51
Rackham isnt "better".
It just follows less constraints and has all the pictures of its models painted to rediculously high standards to make its models look "better".

Either way, its not really right to use non GW models in a GW store.
Regardless of whether you think something looks better or not than what GW has to offer.
so, a)GW can't afford as good painters as the competition? seriously doubt it...
b)it's going to hurt their feelings?:cries:
not to mention noone even mentioned bringing them to GW shops. we all know it's strictly verboten:p

tanglethorn
25-10-2007, 21:34
Rackham isnt "better".
It just follows less constraints and has all the pictures of its models painted to rediculously high standards to make its models look "better".

Either way, its not really right to use non GW models in a GW store.
Regardless of whether you think something looks better or not than what GW has to offer.


So they have better painters than GW is essentially what you are saying? Hogwash.

I disagree because I think GW paints their show models very well. It's the Eavy Metal style!

The painting style you are seeing on Rackham models is a very different style. I forget the name, but it has to do with painting metal parts of the model using non-metallic paints (ie, swords and armor ). In fact they have a tutorial on their site that explains the process. It's really not hard at all if you practice on 2-3 models.

It involves something that a lot of GW players typically dont do....thinning down their paints... I'm referring to folks who are typically beginners or are more in it for the gaming portion.

Any way I digress. The models without paint still are stunning sculpted. Again I'll restate my point about customers walking by our Controntation section. They always give a second glance and our models are painted by actual customers. Typically these are seen first and then our consumers check out the box art.

Let's compare GW undead models to Confrontation Undead models. GW loses hands down there. And I am not referring to the upcoming VC models. These could very well boost GW's undead to the same level. GW undead Horses though? LoL. Need I say more?

Rackham Orcs and Goblins? I think Rackham has them beat, but not by a whole lot. It's a different style all together and in fact I find many of their models easier to paint because all of that the detail makes highlighting such a breeze...

scarletsquig
25-10-2007, 21:49
I'm surprised more of this discussion isn't based around AT-43, for which the models are pretty damn good.

It's their main game now, confrontation was always small and niche.

grickherder
25-10-2007, 22:02
heh, someone else chasing up the last bits of the army too! I feel your pain.

I have a couple prowlers to get (including the elusive Prowler 2) as well as the Incubus of the Despot box set. I just found one at a good price though, so that only leaves me the prowlers. I don't have everything else, but have what I want-- a large variety of the various infantry and every character I thought looked cool (almost all of them). The cyclops is cool as well, but I'm not really in the mood to paint big monsters.


I'm a fairly good painter, but my Dirz stuff looks quite plain. (I can't really handel free hand work at the moment so everything looks a bit plain)

I find the key is contrast. You can fake the highlighting style Rackham uses by using glazes over white and then washes for the dark part. Turns out quite good and it's quick. It also works well to preshade the recesses.


The trouble with discussions like this is that it comes down to taste.

Exactly. And the stylistic differences between GW's stuff and Rackham's confrontation line are massive. There's no questioning the technical skill of Rackham's sculptor(s) though.


All companies produce some great stuff, and some naff stuff. Play in an indie or club, and you can always mix the best bits from all ranges in an uber army of doom.

This is pretty much the best way to go. I've always liked independent clubs that aren't beholden to a particular company for gaming space. I'm part of two such clubs that rents premises once a month each at community centers.

Scionscion
25-10-2007, 22:08
Oh my stars and garters! AT-43 are the rubbish rackham prepaint toys for little boys and cannot be seriously compared with any proper hobby products. GW are by far and away the most successful hobby miniatures business that has ever existed - that should tell anyone how 'good' their minis are. Rachkam are a piddly little business that has badly mismanaged itself into ditching its almost passable metal hobby models in order to pursue the pre-pubescent toy dollar selling bendy garbage that makes heroclix look good!

WargamesEmpire
25-10-2007, 22:10
One thing that doesn't seem to be addressed is how easy it is to customise GW miniatures.

While I agree that Rackham miniatures are beautiful, one Mid-Nor army tends to look like any other Mid-Nor army. Conversions and customisation is incredibly difficult with the Rackham range. Short of paint schemes, there's not much variety in different armies.

GW on the other hand, let's take the latest Warhammer plastic kits; Empire Wizards, Black Orcs, Flagellants, Empire Generals, etc. Huge potential and no two miniatures need look alike. GW have certainly made firm steps in the right direction recently. It hasn't always been this way, but I see things getting better as they strive to compete with Rackham et al.

That's why for me, although I find Confrontation miniatures astoundingly beautiful, GW kits win hands down.

WargamesEmpire
25-10-2007, 22:13
Oh my stars and garters! AT-43 are the rubbish rackham prepaint toys for little boys and cannot be seriously compared with any proper hobby products. GW are by far and away the most successful hobby miniatures business that has ever existed - that should tell anyone how 'good' their minis are. Rachkam are a piddly little business that has badly mismanaged itself into ditching its almost passable metal hobby models in order to pursue the pre-pubescent toy dollar selling bendy garbage that makes heroclix look good!

No offence, but AT-43 isn't that bad, not by a longshot. The game itself plays wonderfully and although I agree, the pre-painted miniatures aren't amazing quality, they're nowhere near as bad as Heroclix or D&D Miniatures. The UNA Defender Snake is a prime example of how well pre-painted plastic can be done.

Pokpoko
25-10-2007, 23:06
well, while i'm NOT a fan of the AT-43 minis by any lenght, i must say that sculpt wise they are on par with GW stuff, and the prepaint quality,while nothing to wirte home about, is also GW quality(that is-lots of people playing 40k will have simmiliar paintworks). the new Confra stuff (especialy the ones shown today-griffin cav and fusilier) while totally not impressive by their previous standards is still as good as the best GW managed to produce in terms of R&F troops. the only thing really killing the looks for me are mouldlines-obviously scraping them off is not in job description of the guys putting them together.

swordwind
26-10-2007, 02:42
Agreed. I hate prepaints with a burning passion but I have to admit, the AT43 stuff is better than most of the painting in my local GW and LGS.

Adept
26-10-2007, 04:43
Agreed. I hate prepaints with a burning passion

So er, just paint over them?

silashand
26-10-2007, 05:38
To be honest, I'm a much bigger fan of GW's work than the comical, cartoony style of Rackham. Each to his own though.

Same here. I admit some of their stuff is good, but on the whole I think GW's is better. About the only area I think they are consistently better with is amount of flash on their metal models. In that GW seems to have far more than other metal minis from other manufacturers, but that could simply be due to scale as well. Who knows.

Cheers, Gary

grickherder
26-10-2007, 05:49
So er, just paint over them?

Prepaints are almost always (or is that always?) on soft rubber/plastic with terrible mould lines that you have to slice or melt away. While I've seen some pleasing results from others who have done good repaints, as a whole, the material and mould lines are undesirable compared to metal or hard plastic.

scarletsquig
26-10-2007, 06:51
GW are the most successful hobby miniatures business that has ever existed - that should tell anyone how 'good' their minis are.

Again... McDonalds is the most successful restaurant business that has ever existed. ;)


Rachkam are a piddly little business that has badly mismanaged itself into ditching its almost passable metal hobby models in order to pursue the pre-pubescent toy dollar selling bendy garbage that makes heroclix look good!

I realise you're just here to troll, but I'll address your point anyway. :)

AT-43 models are made from hard plastic, the only parts that have a similar "bendy" quality to the heroclix stuff are things like the thin spikes/ claws on the therians, that are deliberately moulded in a softer plastic to prevent them breaking.

The plastic quality isn't ideal, but it's nowhere near as crap as the stuff Wizkids produce. To give you a better idea, the plastic is hard enough to take a file to on AT-43 models, try that on some random heroclix figure and it'll feel like you're filing an eraser and you'll get nowhere. As for the painting side of things, they're designed to be reprimed without any loss of detail... the paintjob isn't as.. "sludgy" as the heroclix standard.

Bloodknight
26-10-2007, 07:26
My problem with Rackham prepaints is that every army looks the same, the paintjob is not great (at least it's worse than what I can do) and they are even more ridiculously expensive than any other manufacturer. I mean 6 basic uncustomisable plastic guys for 30 Euro (that is about 45 US$)? I get 3 times as many plastic figures from GW for that price. Also, I sort of enjoy painting, so paying for a job I could do better is a waste (and I don't like that Rackham advertises with a really good promo paintjob, but the actual stuff you buy is naff in comparison).

grickherder
26-10-2007, 08:00
scarletsquig, that's very interesting information about the harder plastic. If mould lines can indeed be sanded/scraped/filed off satisfactorily, then AT-43 might have some interest for me. As well as the plastic fantasy stuff they might release for whatever their other game is going to be called.

Got to agree with Bloodknight though-- Rackham should not be showing custom repaints and pretending they're prepaints in their promotional material. And the price isn't there either. But I've been loving the deep discounts on their metal stuff that many indy stores currently have to clear them.

Pokpoko
26-10-2007, 13:02
well, to give them their due, they do show the factory quality pics on their webshop, and as the boxyes have see-through lids you also see what you are about to buy. plus,as far as i know,every Prepaints company does the same thing. in this mindset it's entirely possible to say that GW is misguiding it's customers,as none of my models looked as good as the box shown after painting:p

Warp Zero
26-10-2007, 14:03
If they get through the rough initial investment period, I can see AT-43 and Confrontation taking over from 40k/ fantasy in the US and European markets, while remaining relatively niche in the UK. The product is just plain better-suited to the current "instant satisfaction" climate that seems to be prevailing with clix/ card games.

As for the models.. I'm just glad to see a prepainted range of models that doesn't look crap, and more importantly isn't sold randomly.

Although I do not own anything AT-43 yet, I agree with you on the whole random thing. I think its awesome that AT-43 isn't randomized. I ******* HATE randomized miniature games!

A friend and I made this table top Star Wars dogfighting game using the old small Matchbox starfighters. But they're hard find. Especially ones that are from the original trilogy. But we were happy when WotC announced their pre-painted mini Starfighter line. We were like, "hey...that's like our game..."

Anyways, their rules are rubbish. However, we don't care....we just want the minis for our version! ;) But of course....it typical stupid fashion, the minis are randomized! I don't want a Naboo fighter! I want X-Wings damnit!

Same goes for other friends of mine that run D&D. Sure, pre-painted minis are horrible in quality, but they beat random M&M's, paperclips, and pennies for counters. And sometimes, a DM doesn't want to paint 20 Kobolds. Be nice to just buy....20 pre-painted Kobolds. If you could buy them that is. Nope, they're randomized.

Thank goodness for online stores that break the boxes and sell them individually. But I really wish I could just walk into a store and just buy want I want.

Scionscion
26-10-2007, 14:24
I'll pass on the 'here to troll' comment as I'm actually here to voice an opinion about model figures!

I like the way that the Rackham prepaints are described as being 'hard plastic that you can file apart from the soft bendy bits'! I think that says it all really. I suspect that chemical analysis would reveal that the whole model is made of the same bendy plastic goo. The models are poor and the rules are a shallow immitation of a wargame - no depth, no character, and no hobby content. As to being able to or wanting to paint over the prepaints - good luck, wish you well but simply not the same hobby anymore - bye!

Honestly guys the AT-43 range is rubbish, plain and simple. Simply not comparable to Rackham's own metal models let alone GW's offerings. By going down this road Rackham have sold their hobby company soul and become a toy company - fact! They'll either sink out of sight in the next year (they are still in administration) or if they survive and are successful will be quickly assimilated by 'real' toy companies in the US and given some 'proper' toy company marketing! If you love Rackham, AT-43 or Confrontation I think you are in for a disappointing time. I don't think that Rackham are simply better - I think they will soon be simply gone!

A neutral shade of black.
26-10-2007, 16:08
Honestly guys the AT-43 range is rubbish, plain and simple.

That's okay; we'll just ignore the fact that a lot of people like AT-43 for both its rules and its prepaints, shall we? I mean, we're already suspending disbelief far enough as it is by reading your post.


By going down this road Rackham have sold their hobby company soul and become a toy company - fact!

No; that's just your opinion; a misguided and amusing retarded one, at that.


If you love Rackham, AT-43 or Confrontation I think you are in for a disappointing time. I don't think that Rackham are simply better - I think they will soon be simply gone!

*yawn*

Bloodknight
26-10-2007, 16:30
I think the main problem on the European market will be the outrageous price of these figures. In the US they are a lot cheaper (IIRC an American pays about 60% of the European price), so that may work out.

Interestingly their reselling value seems to be quite bad either. I've seen several "have" ads where people tried to sell their AT43 stuff in German fora and they could not sell them for more than half the original price, sometimes not even more than a third.
I especially feel with one guy who burned almost 300€ (ie he bought stuff for 500 and could only sell it for about 200) in buying an army (UNA), finding nobody to play and trying to get rid of his stuff.

I understand when people now don't start that game after the VOID, Warzone and VOR fiascos and now a game (or two games) from a struggling company as this stuff is simply not worth anything anymore if the game flops (for example Warzone plastic figures are 8 cent apiece new on sprue. You get these in packs of 400 for less than 30 euros on ebay). Which it does in Europe at the moment.

Pokpoko
26-10-2007, 18:24
he rules are a shallow immitation of a wargame - no depth, no character, and no hobby content.funnily,the rules are more in-depth and developed than the poor excuse for intro-broschure that 40k is:o as for hobby contents-i signed up for warGAMING, did you sign up for warPAINTING? if so, i understand your plight. but worry not, GW shall continue to provide you with model kits for 4-years old at equally outrageus prices:p

yabbadabba
26-10-2007, 19:03
This is one of those pointless threads, but not because the opinions expressed here are pointless, but because the comparison doesn't stand up.

GW and Rackham are 2 different companies with different goals that happen to operate in the same market genre.

A great example is painting. I was, quite frankly, astonished at the quality from Rackham. From what I know it has been developed from, and now leads, a style of French Model painting that has been improving for a while. And to be honest, without it, IMO, some of the miniatures would look unappealing. GW's painting has been set in stone for many years, and is something they conciously work on as a brand, a recognisable way of doing things.

Yet the panting serves different purposes. GW's, I know, serves as a marketing tool for it's recruitment. The core skills of how they paint are easy to teach, but it takes time to master. This means that very quickly, any new hobbyist under tuition will see that their model is starting to look like the one in the mag, but they will have to keep working to get it to that standard. This essentially creates a tie in for the customer to GW.

Rackham's painting standard is another marketing tool. It speaks of beauty, organic flow of shades, and really brings to life their models. It creates an inspirational challenge for the experienced hobbyist. I have been painting for 20+ years and I cannot paint rackham style. It is too difficult for me. And as such it moves me away from Rackham subconsciously, as I know I cannot recreate what I see. I know many other hobbyists who feel the same.

So summarising after the epic :). The thread is not going to work as the marketing of both companies is completely different. The true comparison is whether the marketing has achieved it's goal and unfortunately it looks like we cannot make that comparison as Rackham is going under for different business reasons.

Gaebriel
27-10-2007, 11:22
I think it's interesting, how some people like to imprint their defintion of 'the hobby'


... As to being able to or wanting to paint over the prepaints - good luck, wish you well but simply not the same hobby anymore - bye! ...

on others, as well as calling a company a


... By going down this road Rackham have sold their hobby company soul and become a toy company - fact! ...

'toy company' and then putting it on the opposite side of a fence from a company that has dumped down their systems to cater to children of 12-14...

:p

But well...

I personally like the Rakham style which I would describe as artistical rather than comical (as opposed to GW which I would rather call comical than natural). What I have seen of Rakham metals would have inspired me to start, only now it's late :( I would have just wanted to collect those Lions and Griffins - or make a (GW) High Elves army from them...

I think it's a bit sad that they gave up their high level of artistic design (for me peaking in showcase metal miniatures) to produce plastic run-of-the-mill models, but the same goes with the 'plastification' of GW - I guess both go where they think the money is. And while GW seems to be on the right road with their agenda (dark incantations and magic pixies I say ;) ), I do fear Rakham miscalculated - but then, I'm not the aimed at customer by far.

MutantMaggot
27-10-2007, 12:11
Rackham's a good company, but it's models are more ... comical, almost ... some aren't -- many are very good, but they're not all superb. For example, the main point is that the best models can be used with GW. The reason they lost money was because they are going for the wrong audience -- they have begun to aim at cheaper models, rather than more expensive models which made the most money. I wouldn't really know, but I think that if Rackham wants money they should head in the OPPOSITE direction to GW, so GW doesn't steal their market.

And wouldn't these make marvellous daemons?
http://www.rackham-store.com/boutique_us/liste_produits.cfm?type=794&code_lg=lg_us&num=13
http://www.rackham-store.com/boutique_us/liste_familles.cfm?num=13&code_lg=lg_us

selfconstrukt
27-10-2007, 15:25
I do agree that their sculpts are very nice, sometimes much better than GW, but their castings need a lot of improvement.

Maybe thats why they went PP. Better consistency with the mass produced models.

That is one reason GW is going all-plastic over the next 3-5 years.

MutantMaggot
27-10-2007, 15:50
Many armies, like my Empire army, are all plastic already.

And plastic's cheaper.

Usually.

MM

Vic
27-10-2007, 16:23
Rackham's a good company, but it's models are more ... comical, almost ... some aren't -- many are very good, but they're not all superb.

Um,....GW's models have been comical for the last 20 years. Granted, they are improving, but, have you seen the proportions on their sculpts? "Heroic scale" is just a fancy name for comical proportions. And the bling on the models themselves? Ridiculous.

That said, I think Rackhams metals are nicely done, their pre-paints are pants, and GW through the plastic model kits gives more creative options when assembling them. They each have their own style, but to say that one is superior over the other I think is narrow minded and subjective to the tastes of the viewer.

"Hero-clix" style models/toys on the other hand...blllleeeaaaahhhhh.

MutantMaggot
27-10-2007, 16:43
By comical I was meaning to refer to the distorted dimensions on many models, often more than on GW models. I think Rackham does produce many good models, but also some rubbish ones, but it really depends on what you regard as a "good" model.

MM

Vic
27-10-2007, 17:03
very true. Can be said about most game producers really...

aenarion67
29-10-2007, 07:25
i dont like some of rackhams concepts...
such as the gorilla in a tau battle suit???
WTF!

dodicula
29-10-2007, 08:35
yeah, I think they are still "finding themselves" in the sci-fi arena, but they are known more for their fantasy stuff which is superb (mostly)

Ethlorien
29-10-2007, 14:14
yeah, I think they are still "finding themselves" in the sci-fi arena, but they are known more for their fantasy stuff which is superb (mostly)

I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, it's been stated by the company that AT-43 is their money-maker (especially in North America, not so much in Europe). Confrontation just didn't generate enough sales for them to continue (hence why their switching to pre-painted fantasy, in hopes of generating the same sales as AT-43).

I've been buying up the Confrontation models as I can; they'll be drying up pretty fast here. I really don't have interest in a pre-painted fantasy army, as I tend to paint more then I play these days.

ChaosMaster
29-10-2007, 15:40
This is highly subjective. I've seen a few Rackham miniatures here and there that I liked, but for the most part I'd take anything sculpted by Jes Goodwin and the crew at GW over most of the Rackham product line.

aenarion67
30-10-2007, 07:44
when rackham goes bankrupt would GW like take all of their sculptors?

Pokpoko
30-10-2007, 15:56
if.if it goes bankrupt. and i doubt GW would,if they had any inclination to "buyout" other sculptors they'd probably try it with Gamezone already,and as the quality of new minis shows-they most certainly did not.

gilvagor
30-10-2007, 16:40
Rackham mini's are better for somethings. I use several Rackham mini's for character pieces. All my vampires are Rackham because GW's completely suck zombie bits. I use some of Rackham mini's for Necromancers and Wights as well.

Rackham has gone through some money issues but they are pretty much being carried now by Fantasy Flight Games. They have taken over distribution for them in North America. I don't see them going away anytime soon. AT-43 totally destroyed them. I think they will just focus on their unpainted line instead of their painted line.

selfconstrukt
30-10-2007, 16:59
Rackham won't go bankrupt, I hope.

It just seems like they "got lost" and are trying to appeal to a different customer base now.

Pokpoko
30-10-2007, 17:15
well, if the AT43 did bring more or the same amount of money as the metals(not sure here,just heard it that way),then i can see why they switched totally.of course in between people obviously stopped buing the metal at all either dropping the game or waiting for the new models,hence the protection they asked for.

Ethlorien
30-10-2007, 17:17
AT-43 totally destroyed them. I think they will just focus on their unpainted line instead of their painted line.

I know it's wishful think, as I too loved their miniatures, but, I spend some time on the Rackham forums and Jean Bey, the president of Rackham, has stated that they are discontinuing their unpainted line (going to 100% prepaints). They've actaully gone as far as selling off their foundry. There may be a few special characters here and there for the hobbyist, he said, but their new version of Confrontation will be all pre-paints.
Also, AT-43 is about the only game that did and still does make them money . They've had very good success with it, especially in North America.
Despite beautiful models, Confrontation itself went through many changes and did not catch on with that large a comminity (same for their Hybrid, Cadwallon, and Rag'narok games).

gilvagor
30-10-2007, 17:23
Wow. That's completely opposite from what our distributors have told us and from I've read. I don't bother to much with most companies forums and most of them are moderated to heavily and very little true information gets out.

Would be sad if they did that. While their game might not be that great of a seller their mini's are. At-43 is a complete dog for us. We stocked in quite a bit of it and we haven't sold a single piece.

WargamesEmpire
30-10-2007, 18:55
Would be sad if they did that. While their game might not be that great of a seller their mini's are. At-43 is a complete dog for us. We stocked in quite a bit of it and we haven't sold a single piece.

Strange. AT-43 is a huge seller for us. Sales have dried up quite a bit since all the Rackham troubles become public, but our initital shipment of AT-43 sold out within three weeks.

Unfortunately it's pretty much set in stone. Unpainted metals are out, pre-painted plastic is in. The new version of Confrontation releases in less than a month and so too does the new plastic line, so those hoping for Rackham to continue making metal miniatures are out of luck.